Nicola Sturgeon plans to hold a new vote on Scottish independence by the end of next year without the authority of the Boris Johnson government, to an extent that is likely to lead to lengthy legal battles.
The Prime Minister said on Tuesday that she would update Holyrood on her plans “very soon”, as she published a report stating that Scotland should aspire to equalize the prosperity rates of small European countries such as Denmark and Ireland after independence. .
Sturgeon said he had an election mandate to hold a referendum with or without the Westminster agreement and said his government had devised a legally safe alternative route to one, regardless of that approval.
Legislation established by the Scottish Parliament stipulates that Westminster must authorize any referendum affecting the constitution of the United Kingdom, under the so-called section 30 order.
The 2014 referendum, which did not win between 55% and 45%, was called after the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, agreed to offer an Article 30 order for Alex Salmond, the then Prime Minister. , had won a victory in the Holyrood election. in 2011.
Many constitutional lawyers and pro-UK parties believe this is the only legal way. Former Prime Minister Theresa May and Johnson have repeatedly refused to authorize a new referendum, saying the 2014 result was final.
With Patrick Harvie, the co-leader of the Scottish Green Party, with her at Bute House, her official residence in Edinburgh, Sturgeon declined to give further details about her alternative strategy. But he agreed that he would face obstacles that he declined to specify.
“We are dealing with a Prime Minister who does not respect democracy, the law or any of the rules that underpin democracy in the UK,” he said, referring to Johnson’s attempts to rewrite the Northern Ireland protocol. and his refusal to resign over the Partygate Scandal. “I have to face this reality. Are these challenges? Will I set them. And the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate without an Article 30 order is being questioned. I think we can move forward on a path, but I will do so responsibly. I will do it correctly “.
Sturgeon faces the important prospect of an unorthodox route being challenged in the UK Supreme Court. You can propose that the UK and Scottish governments jointly apply to the court for a decision. This poses a clear risk that Johnson will refuse to do so or that the court will declare his proposals illegal.
The UK government and pro-UK parties could boycott a referendum without Article 30, undermining its political legitimacy. Sturgeon has prioritized the organization of a legal and legitimate event to ensure that it has international approval, especially within the EU. Reintegration into the EU is being touted by Sturgeon as one of the main benefits of independence.
The paper published on Tuesday, Independence in the modern world: wealthier, happier, just: why not Scotland ?, is the first in a series that the Sturgeon government will publish in the coming months in an effort to expose a renewed case for independence and reverse a favorable vote decline.
Sign up for First Edition, our free daily newsletter, every weekday morning at 7:00 BST
Opposition parties described the document as “tomorrow’s cherry picking and jam” after comparing the UK’s poor economic performance and higher poverty rates with only the records of 10 small, high-yielding countries. such as Norway, Austria and Belgium. He ignored the larger countries or those with weaker economies.
Sturgeon declined to say how long it would take an independent Scotland to regenerate its economy. He said economic crises were exactly why independence was needed. “The sooner we get to this path, the sooner we will pave the way for the kind of success that [other countries] enjoy, “he said.
Conservatives, Labor and Liberal Democrats said it was ruinous to pursue an independence referendum in the midst of an economic crisis, with the UK facing a recession, a new Brexit crisis and soon after the pandemic. Covid. Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labor leader, said: “You can’t do politics as long as people’s lives and livelihoods are in balance.”